Update player

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and discloses key side effects: assigning *_id schedules a publish and returns publish_required: true, null clears an assignment, and the one-of constraint among playlist_id/sequence_id/planning_id. However, it doesn't specify error behavior (e.g., for invalid player_id or conflicting IDs) or idempotency, so it stops short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with a summary line followed by 'When to use', 'When NOT to use', and 'What to know' sections. It uses bullet points for readability and contains no redundant filler; every sentence adds operational value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational contract: mutable fields, publish scheduling, null clearing, and the one-of constraint. It stops short of fully defining group_id and the result of a player_id-only call, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all mutable fields and explains orientation values, null-clearing syntax, and the mutual-exclusion rule for content-assignment IDs. However, it does not clarify the meaning of group_id or what happens when only player_id is provided, leaving some parameter semantics underspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Patch mutable fields on a single player,' which clearly identifies the verb (patch), resource (mutable fields on a player), and scope (single player). It further distinguishes from sibling tools by noting when NOT to use it (content authoring tools) and its relationship to publish_players.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'When to use' section explicitly lists concrete user intents (rename, change orientation, reassign content), while the 'When NOT to use' section directs users to dedicated content-authoring tools. It also instructs to call publish_players to apply changes, providing clear alternative/next-step guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.